High court strikes Massachusetts abortion 'buffer zone'

Quote one single thing of mine that is dishonest or is it more to the point that you have no more room to squirm.

If you cannot post a dishonest comment from me then apologize or be reported.

I don't have to show you an example to show what the legal position is .. it is there in black and white though you choose to ignore it.

Just as I don't have to show you an example of a murder in order to show what the legal position is.

It doesn't matter if a person takes them 100% literally or not, you really, really need to look up what slander means, because if you did you would find that it does not matter how literally the person takes the accusation, in fact how the person perceives the accusation personally has no impact on the legality of accusing someone of an illegal act when that accusation is a lie. You cannot sue for hurt feelings, you can sue for the effect the accusation has on your "place in the community" or if it effects "your standing"

 

Translation into truth: "I have no answer to such an obvious question."

 

Okay, now youre starting to make some sense. I apologize for calling you ignorant.

Explain how a pro lifer calling a woman a "murderer" can effect her standing or place in the community.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's proof of your dishonesty.

In the past you said, "what pro lifers think is irrelvant" (or something along those lines). Now you imply it is relevant. The dishonesty exists in that you pick and choose (ie, cherry pick) your standards in debating.

 

As someone who proclaims himself soooo intelligent why don't you know the answer to that???

 

It is irrelevant what protesters THINK. It's what they SAY that counts.



And what would you say to posters in the other threads who keep saying abortion is murder?

 

IT IS NOT MY OPINION it is a legal fact. What is an opinion is your incessant bull(*)(*)(*)(*) comments that have nothing at all to do with what slander is.

There is no cop out on my part, only on yours . .you just cannot accept that your argument is so lame and IRRELEVANT that you will try to bait and switch.

Not in a court of law it is not.

It is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing irrelevant, my response is to your insistence "Anybody with half an intelligence can realize that pro lifers are not literally accusing women of commiting a crime. " so don't even try to misrepresent me, you are not intelligent enough to do so.

Either prove your accusation of me being a dishonest poster or be reported, I am sick to death of your infantile responses, you simply don't have the knowledge to be involved in debating.

 

Many courts in America do not make it illegal for pro life protestors to say certain things. UK law doesn't apply in this discussion.

Why not?

I already explained it in a previous post.

 

how the (*)(*)(*)(*) should I know, ask a lawyer.

 

And yet you claim to be knowledge on court cases and legal issues.

 

""""Many courts in America do not make it illegal for pro life protestors to say certain things""""


What courts? Example?

What certain things? Calling someone a murder with no proof?


What has the UK got to do with this?

Squirming a little ?

- - - Updated - - -

And YOU claim to be soooo intelligent but can't do a search on a computer all by yourself ???????????????

 

and yet again for about the bloody 50th time, it doesn't matter one iota what these pro-lifers literally mean, how stupid you are not even to understand such a simple concept, and before you try to come back at me with something along the lines of me being stupid for not understanding what you are trying to say .. I do fully understand it, it simple doesn't matter.

You know exactly what I mean, it has been explained to you numerous times, that what these pro-lifers literally mean or what context they mean it in has absolutely no bearing on what slander is or on how the courts would view it .. you cannot call someone a murderer and then stand in court and say "well I didn't mean it literally" or "I didn't mean it in that context" and use that as a defense, the first question you would be asked is why you used a specific word that means a specific thing if you didn't mean it. .. BTW still waiting for you to show me in what context the word murderer is being used, I even supplied the full set of definitions for you . .so stop evading and tell me which "context" is being used.

 

In American law, many states allow pro lifers to say what they want during protests. UK Law is irrelevant. Also, I've never heard of a woman being put on trial for murder, because of what a few pro life protestors said. Women who sue pro life protestors are petty and selfish and greedy.

 

And you said I was trolling ???? LOL!

You obviously are just playing games.......must be bored...

 

I have been making sense since this debate started, you on the other hand have not.

If a woman loses her job due to the accusation, if a woman is "shunned" by others due to this accusation .. and now you are going to ask me to provide evidence that this has ever happened which is not required, as I have told you before just because something has not happened yet does not mean it cannot happen and as such does not make it not possible.

Now I'll post YOUR comment that I was responding to.

So it is easy to see that my comment is not dishonest but merely showing you that pro-lifers DO consider abortion murder despite your denials

The relevance is to your insistence that pro-lifers don't mean it literally when they scream murderer at a woman, those links show otherwise, and what they think does not have any relevance to slander .. what you are attempting to do is to take two unconnected items and forge them to make something that suits your agenda ie. your insistence that pro-lifers don't actually mean it when the scream murderer at a woman and me showing you that they do has absolutely nothing to do with whether they mean it or not as far as slander laws are concerned .. in other words you tried, and failed, to produce a red herring and in doing so misrepresented my comments on whether pro-lifers meant what they say by using them as an answer to the separate issue of what slander legally means and what impact the literally, or lack of, belief pro-lifers have.

and you cherry pick ALL the time, there are a number of questions you have been asked as yet not a single response from you relating to them.

 

Why would the pro lifers choice of terminology cause the woman to lose her job? How would her boss know that she went to have an abortion in the first place? Thats personal stuff.

such as what?

- - - Updated - - -

Cherry picking. Second of all, pro lifers are smart enough to know abortion is legal. They are not literally accusing her of breaking the law.

Yes it does.

 

Has a case of slander ever been brought before a court relating to this issue? If not you cannot say that "Many courts in America do not make it illegal for pro life protestors to say certain things", or can you provide the legal standings that do show this?

I am not using or quoting UK law, yet another red herring.

In a case of slander in the USA court system the belief of the person accused of said slander is irrelevant to the actual crime committed.

I've already posted the US legal position on slander about three times, but here is another US legal definition just for you;

"Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person."

and here is a nice little extract from the same site that explains why a private citizen has a greater right to protect their reputation than a public citizen

"Where the plaintiff in a defamation action is a private citizen who is not in the public eye, the law extends a lesser degree of constitutional protection to defamatory statements. Public figures voluntarily place themselves in a position that invites close scrutiny, whereas private citizens who have not entered public life do not relinquish their interest in protecting their reputation. In addition, public figures have greater access to the means to publicly counteract false statements about them. For these reasons, a private citizen's reputation and privacy interests tend to outweigh free speech considerations and deserve greater protection from the courts. (See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Slander+and+libel

Yes you did and I blew your accusation full of holes.

 

Never have claimed any such knowledge of court cases on this subject . .so that is a lie, and any fool can search the legal issues concerning slander .. I suggest you do so.

 

Please link to the cases where this has been established.

Yes it is, hence why I have not used anything to do with UK law .. red herring on your part.

WTF has this to do with anything, you are one seriously confused person.

Of course they would be to you seeing as how you don't want the law to apply to them and allow your pro-life "buddies" to break the law on a whim.

 

Thankfully not.

There should be exceptions to the rule.

This proves your dishonest and self contradictory views. earlier on, you posted a comment saying that a woman's feelings aren't the issue-her reputation is.

- - - Updated - - -

IDK. not everything has to be spelt out.

It has EVERYTHING to do with this issue. If a woman cannot legally be put on trial because of what a pro life protestor said, how the **** are they ruining her reputation?

Do you realize that many people sue because they love the almighty dollar?

- - - Updated - - -

Im pretty sure there are some moderate pro choicers who agree with me on this issue.

 

Oh lets see now, pro-lifers routinely video people going into PP clinics, they then place some of these videos on line, so a woman who has been videoed entering a PP clinic is spotted by her boss on that video .. the company she works for is a high profile business dealing with public figures, the boss doesn't want his clients to be associated with a woman who is on a video being called a murderer who may or may not have actually had an abortion and as such he finds a way to get rid of the woman . .sacking her for being there would of course be illegal, but there are other ways of ensuring someone leaves the business or ensuring they fail in order to achieve their dismissal .. Now of course all of that is based on "what if" and I have absolutely no way of proving if it could or has happened, but then you didn't ask for actual proof did you.

Define the context or meaning of what pro-lifers mean when the scream murderer at someone, I eve supplied the full range of definitions for the word murderer for you .. so which of those definitions do they really "mean" if not to illegally take the life of another person, you are of course free to provide your own definition with the relevant links to show it is not one you have made up.

is murder illegal? .. yes or no
if so then is calling someone a murderer accusing them of committing an illegal act? .. yes or no

You really have no idea what cherry picking means do you . .please explain how links to disprove your insistent whining that pro-lifers don't mean it when they scream "murderer" at a woman going into a PP clinic are "cherry picking", and for about the 50th time it simply doesn't not matter to the court what the pro-lifers believe or what they are literally saying .. I'll ask again if they do not mean it literally then please show me the definition of murderer that fits what they mean?

Really then you should have no problem providing the links to the laws governing slander to show that what the person accused of slander thinks has a relevance as to how the law and courts see it . .I'll wait.

 

The justice system views each case an an individual case. i guess exceptions are made in some situtations, because every case is different.

But then again, abortion is a very unique situation. it cant be compared to anything else. even if it could, i do not feel like spending hours of research looking up legal definitions and court cases. i spend a lot of my time reading about fun stuff like science and animals. I dont feel like researching boring stuff like legal definitions and laws.

Lately I've been spending way too much time debating on political forum. i should've done what churchmouse and anders did-which is to stop wasting time commenting and debating.

- - - Updated - - -

Murder is illegal, but pro lifers are not saying that a woman is commiting an illegal act (abortion is legal).

- - - Updated - - -

Forget about what the personal accused of slander thinks, what about the people who witness the slander? If a person walking by a PP clinic hears a woman being called that word, what else would they assume, other than "a religious freak thinks abortion is wrong"??

 

I of course disagree, if such a case were to be tried and won then it would stop all these pro-lifers who have no right to slander another person from doing so .. I hope a court case does happen.

Why because you say so?

You really do have a comprehension problem don't you.. what you have highlighted is about how other people treat the person slandered, not how the slandered person feels. It is how other peoples feelings towards that person change due to the accusation made.

You made a statement of fact as follows - "In American law, many states allow pro lifers to say what they want during protests", now you are saying that you don't know ergo your statement of fact is a lie.

It has nothing to do with whether she can be put on trial and has everything to do with the false accusation made against her . .you do not have to be arrested, charged and put on trial to have your reputation ruined .. This is just so simple to understand, I'm starting to think that you are just being obtuse on purpose and just making comments for the sale of it.

Really couldn't care less as it has nothing to do with the discussion

So what, you are not trying to debate with them, and are you now admitting that you lied about me claiming to have knowledge of court cases on this issue?

 

so in other words you cannot find anything to back up your assertion .. noted.

Then stop trying to debate things you know little about, if you are not prepared to do the research then you at best enter a debate naked and at worst you are made to look a fool.

If you consider having your preconceptions challenged as "wasting time" then you are forever going to be in the dark.

and again they are not accusing her of having an abortion which is a legal act, they are accusing her of being a murderer which is an illegal act and as such without evidence to support that she has actually committed a murder in the eyes of the law (not what pro-lifers think is murder) they are slandering her.

I don't know because unlike you I make no allusion as to be able to read other peoples minds. I can certainly speculate what they may think, but that speculation does equate to actual knowledge, adn you can assume what ever you like about what they are thinking the point is you cannot know for a fact.

 

Most women are smart enough to realize the protestors are talking about the legal act of abortion. It doesnt matter what the pro lifers think, it matters what the people they are affecting (like the women) think. That's what you said, am I right?

 

So WHAT or WHY are they protesting?

How dishonest and cowardly not to be able to answer such a pertinent question.....surely someone as intelligent as YOU say you are could answer that......but it also takes courage and honesty...so I never got an intelligent answer...